After a unanimous vote, the organization that represents U of T faculty in labour negotiations will pursue certification as a labour union.
A dispute over the status of U of T faculty who work at the university’s teaching hospitals has spurred the University of Toronto Faculty Association (UTFA) to action—a move that may change the system of labour relations at U of T.
The UTFA is using clinical faculty as a “stalking horse for another political issue,” said the dean of U of T’s Medical School, David Naylor.
Unlike most other Canadian universities, teaching staff at U of T are not members of a union. Instead, they are members of UTFA, which is not certified under the Ontario Labour Relations Act and thus lacks some powers that certified unions possess.
Last Thursday, Naylor and other members of the Governing Council’s Academic Board discussed the issue Provost Shirley Neuman said has been “preoccupying the campus” for the past week. In a letter to UTFA, Neuman informed the association that the Memorandum of Agreement, which sets out many of the guidelines for labour relations between faculty and administration at the university, would not be renewed unless a change to its terms is accepted.
In the letter, addressed to George Luste, the president of UTFA, Neuman said the administration wished to “amend the Memorandum of Agreement so that clinical faculty are excluded from its application.” If UTFA does not accept this amendment, the administration will not renew the Memorandum after June 30.
Clinical faculty comprises over 1,300 faculty members who work in nine hospitals that are part of the University Health Network. They are paid almost exclusively by the hospitals and not the university.
“My first eight years on faculty, the University of Toronto paid me nothing. When I became a full professor, the university graciously increased my compensation to $2,800 per annum,” said Naylor at the Academic Board Meeting.
UTFA is alarmed by what they perceive as a unilateral action by the administration to change the terms of agreement. As a result, they are calling on their members to consider certifying as a union.
But according to Naylor, clinical faculty are overwhelmingly in favour of the administration’s move. They do not feel they are represented by UTFA. Clinical faculty do not pay dues to UTFA and do not have voting rights.
Given the radically different circumstances clinical faculty operate under compared to their other faculty counterparts, they feel UTFA cannot adequately represent their interests, Naylor said.
Since this conflict has grown increasingly more inflammatory, UTFA and the clinical faculty have not engaged in discussions. Naylor said clinical faculty would be willing to talk, but he added, “Suffice it to say that at this point in time there is a palpable impatience [amongst clinical faculty] with UTFA’s interference.”
The administration’s move comes as a response to the findings of the Clinical Faculty Task Force, which was established in January 2002 in order to explore how the university can improve its relationship with clinical faculty. In her response to the task force’s findings, Provost Neuman writes: “As UTFA does not represent clinical faculty in their salary and benefits negotiations and does not admit clinical faculty as full members, this course of self-determination is the only legitimate path by which the University can strengthen and clarify its relationship with our clinical colleagues.”
Naylor said he sees the conflict as a result of misunderstanding. “I really fundamentally believe that once they understand the issue, they will rise to the occasion.”
If they do reverse their position, “I will believe that this is not about clinical faculty being used as political pawns…. If, on the other hand, in the face of clear support for this policy, they were still to [maintain their position], we really are being held hostage,” said Naylor.
Naylor views the move for certification as paradoxical. He said if UTFA were to unionize, “self-employed physicians would be excluded under Ontario’s labour laws.”
He said certification “would be divisive.” It would “force our colleagues into pro- and anti-union camps over a non-issue.”
At most other Canadian universities, faculty are unionized. In a letter to UTFA members, professor William H. Nelson wrote, “the Memorandum has some obvious weaknesses if compared to the contracts of certified unions at most other Canadian universities.” Nelson said UTFA has fewer options than unionized staff if the administration does not bargain in “good faith”—for example, if it uses tactics of intimidation or acts negligently.
On the other hand, Nelson agreed that unionization could create division amongst faculty.
There have been several other occasions when UTFA has considered certification. The issue arose, and certification attempts failed, in 1976, 1981, 1984, and 1997.
In his letter, Luste warned UTFA members unless they file for certification prior to June 30, the terms of the Memorandum will not be protected (under “freeze” provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Act).
But Naylor dismissed the message UTFA has sent out: “It’s a no-brainer. Why don’t we resolve this situation and get back to the academic business of helping students with their education?”
Representatives of UTFA could not be reached for comment at press time.
